Agenda Item No. 3 Complaints By the Press Section-13 (13...

Press Council of India

Agenda Item No 3 Adjudications based on reports of Inquiry Committee (Meetings held on May 6-7 2015 at New Delhi June 8-9 2015 at Dehradun and July 6-7 2015 at New Delhi)

Complaints By the Press

Section-13

Inquiry Committee-I Meeting held at New Delhi on May 6-7 2015

1 Complaint of Shri S P Sabharwal Chief Editor Northern Post Dehradun against the Government of Uttrakhand and (i) Vinod Suman Additional District Magistrate (ii) Shri Dilip Jawalkar District Magistrate (iii) Shri Meharban Singh Bisht City Magistrate Dehradun (1315311-12)

2 Complaint of Shri Geetartha Pathak President Journalists Union of Assam against the Police Authorities with regard to assault on journalists on 27122013 (1315113-14)

3 Complaint of Shri Ram Charna Mali Chief Editor Vanvasi Express Shahabad (Raj) against Information amp Public Relations Department Rajasthan (1316413-14)

Inquiry Committee-II Meeting held at Dehradun on June 8-9 2015

4 Complaint of Shri Rajesh Dhyani Editor Jagruk Uttaranchal Lansdowne (UK) and Others against Brigadier Shri Vinod Rayjada Commandant Garhwal Rifles Lansdowne (UK) (137013-14)

5 Complaint of Shri Mumtaz Alam Khan Editor Hind Ki Kalam Haridwar (UK) against Information amp Public Relation Department Dehradun (UK) (139513-14)

6 Complaint of Shri Thakur Kumar (Manojanand) Correspondent Thakur Sahab Times Haridwar Uttarakhand against the IampPRD Dehradun (1311413-14)

7 Shri Kailash Nath Verma President amp Shri Janki Sharan Dwivedi General Secretary Uttar Pradesh Working Journalist Union Gonda (UP) against CRPF Inspector Gonda (UP) (134714-15)

8 Complaint of Shri Keshav Chandola National President Association of Small amp Medium Newspapers of India Kanpur against Press Magistrate ACM III Kanpur (132814-15)

9 Complaint of Shri Dayanand Sharma Journalist Sanskar Times Moradabad (UP) against Police Authority (UP) (138313-14)

10 Complaint of Shri Mahant Bhagwati Pratap Das Correspondent Aaj Barabanki UP against Information and Public Relations Department UP (1311913-14)

11 Complaint of Shri Mohd Javed Kazmi Owner Printer Publisher Editor Purvanchal Laher Mau (UP) against DAVP (1314513-14)

12 Complaint of Shri Avadh Kishore Jaiswal Correspondence Daily News Activities Lakhimpur-Khiri (UP) against Inspector-in-Charge Police Station-Sadar Lakhimpur-Khiri (UP) (13514-15)

Inquiry Committee-I Meeting held at New Delhi on July 6-7 2015

13 Complaint of Shri Ahmed Bharti Editor Nai Aawaz Haridwar (UK) against the DAVP (1313612-13)

14 Complaint of Shri Subhash Chandra Sharma Journalist Bijnor (UP) against Smt Rubeena Mannan Chairperson Kirtpur Municipality Bijnor (UP) (132114-15)

15 Complaint of Shri Mahant Jwala Prasad Co-editor Hathras Gaurav Weekly Newspaper (UP) against the Hathras Police Administration (UP) (136914-15)

Soochna Bhawan 8-CGO Complex Lodhi Road New Delhi ndash 110 003 24366745-46-47-49 Ext 331 Fax 24368723726

Email pcimeetingsgmailcom Website httppresscouncilnicin

Sl No 1 File No1315311-12-PCI Shri SP Sabherwal 1 The Chief Secretary Chief Editor Vs Government of Uttrakhand Northern Post Dehradun Dehradun 2 The Secretary Home(Police) Department Government of Uttrakhand Dehradun 3 Shri Dilip Jawalkar District Magistrate Dehradun Uttrakhand 4 Shri Vinod Suman Additional District Magistrate Dehradun Uttrakhand 5 Shri Meharban Singh Bisht City Magistrate Dehradun Uttrakhand

ADJUDICATION Dated 782015

This complaint dated 822012 was filed by Shri SP Sabherwal Chief Editor Northern Post Uttrakhand against (i) State Government of Uttrakhand Dehradun (ii) Shri Dilip Jawalkar District Magistrate Dehradun (iii) Shri Vinod Suman Additional District Magistrate (E) Dehradun and (iv) Shri Mehraban Singh City Magistrate Dehradun The complainant submitted that the State Government of Uttrakhand through its various officers departments and institutionsauthorities had been harassing and persecuting the press in general and the complainant and his family members in particular for the past several years since June 2011 by various overt and

illegal actions and devices The complainant submitted that the government put a seal on the Press Club Dehradun on 2122008 is another issue under the pretext of a tiff among office bearers and the facility lay sealed due to false excuses The complainant submitted that on 142010 the State Government issued a Government Order(GO) which subjected publishers of newspapers to demeaning regulations and surveillance such as prior Police and Intelligence investigation about their antecedents financial status etc before they could file a newspaperrsquos declaration Hundreds of publishers and prospective publishers all over the state had to undergo the ignominy of facing repetitive Police enquiries and report by the District Information Officer about their financial status This opened floodgates of corruption for procuring favourable reports even before submitting an application for verification of title to the RNI through the DM The complainant further stated that the members of this association as also other sympathetic and bold publication exposed the State governmentrsquos anti-press GO and its effects on publication extensively and ultimately the government had to withdraw this GO He stated that he also received oral threats to stop printing of Uttrakhand Aaj newspapers or face legal action and when he ignored these threats he faced legal action and his press had been shown to be a public nuisance He added that in July 2011 the then Secretary of Mussoorie Development Authority dispatched a lsquoflying squadrsquo of the MDDA to inspect the small room serving as state headquarter of his association which was in the process of renovation He further stated that without giving an opportunity the MDDA passed orders for the demolition of his small office room which resulted in damage to three different property owners The complainant also stated the Secretary MDDA assigned a work force of dozens including police officers gangs of MDDA and a Magistrate He filed an Appeal against the demolition order and got the order stayed but despite the stay order Secretary MDDA issued the force assignment order and the appeal is pending The complainant stated that in September 2011 he received a notice from DM of Dehradun directing to produce the Declaration filed for his printing press He added that the printing press was installed in 1966 to print the daily Northern Post and during the long period of 45 years it had been lost But the petitioner produced the photocopies of old newspapers of 1960 to the DM The complainant further stated that on 16122012 he received a notice from the City Magistrate stating that the printing press was public nuisance under Section 133 PC and why action should not be taken against him under Section 188 Cr PC He submitted that on 512012 the police registered a case against the petitioner his younger sister and his son under Section 501 504 506 509 and 292 IPC but the investigating officer refused to disclose the contents of FIR Discreet enquiries from various source indicated that the FIR was registered at the instance of the DM who was also reportedly exerting pressure on the police to arrest all the three members of his family The complainant submitted he received reliable intelligence of pressure exerted from the highest level for arrest of all three which would result not only in closing down of the printing press and the familyrsquos newspaper but throw out of gear the regular publication of other newspapers printed at the same press The complainant submitted that all such action of the administration are actuated by malice and are meant to stifle the voice of journalists and for press and when these

reports were published in Northern Post no rebuttal was sent by the State Government except tightening the noose further Comments In response to the Councilrsquos Notice for Comments dated 682012 the respondent Shri Vinod Suman Secretary Uttrakhand Information Commission Dehradun the then Additional District Magistrate (E) Dehradun vide his letter dated 1492012 while denying the allegations of the complainant alleged that the complaint was false and frivolous The respondent submitted that he never tried to harass either the complainant or his family members The respondent submitted that the complainant published false baseless and defamatory news items against the Government of Uttrakhand Senior Officers and others to defame them and hide his misdeeds like encroachment illegal construction etc and stop the police action against him The respondent also submitted that the complainant published a series of news items against the Government of Uttrakhand to hide his misdeeds The respondent submitted that the allegations leveled by the complainant may be rejected Counter comments In response to the respondentrsquos comments dated 1492012 the complainant in his counter comments dated 3112013 while reiterating his complaint denied the comments of the respondent The complainant further submitted that after taking over the charge as Director General of Information Shri Dilip Jawalkar invited some handpicked newspaper men from Dehradun City and had delivered an envelope each containing identical copies of a lsquoDraft Revised Advertisement Regulation 2012rsquo with its objective to lsquocurtail the number of newspapersrsquo by selectively denying Government Advertisements to them The complainant submitted that the news proposed ldquoVigyapan Niyamawali 2012rdquo contains some of the most draconian and foolish provisions such as (a) A Family consisting of grandparents parents and children may not publish more

than one newspaper (b) a person may publish as many newspapers as he likes if he publishes them form

different places ie if they are multi city editions irrespective of where they are being printed meaning even if they are all printed at the same one place or printing press A person may therefore publish as many editions of the same newspaper as there are villages in the state but members of an entire family can not publish two newspapers from the same place

(C) As mentioned in passing is paras supra the committee to advise on approval of newspapers for issue of government advertisements shall include representatives of a labour union registered with the Labour Department The interests of the publishers will be monitored by members of a labour union registered with the Labour Department of Uttarakhand

Further Comments of Respondents 1 Reply of Shri Meharban Singh Bisht the then City Magistrate Dehradun The respondent in his comments dated 24102013 denied all the contentions and allegations made by the complainant in his complaint He alleged that the chemicals and papers used in the press of the complainant had a tendency to catch fire easily and the electricity load taken by the machines were too risky and it becomes expedient in the interest of society to take an effective measure to stop the day and night running of the machinery so as to control the future mishappening and thus same lines He further stated that nowhere in the complaint the complainant mentioned the name of Mr RK Goyal who is a Senior Citizen of the country and who was also facing physical health issues and mental torture from the complainant 2 Reply of the Chief Secretary Govt of Uttrakhand The Chief Secretary Govt of Uttrakhand in his written statement dated 1142014 denied the allegations levelled by the complainant and stated that the complaint filed by the petitioner was not maintainable He submitted that the GO dated 142010 was withdrawn by the State Government and thus grievance if any remains against this GO as alleged by the complainant He further stated that the respondent or its officers had never harassed the petitioner since 2011 or did any illegal action He also submitted that the respondent had never given any threats to stop Government advertisement to the newspapers who were against this GO He submitted that the Uttrakhand Aaj newspaper had not approached with any such complaint therefore the allegations against the respondent were totally false baseless and without any substance 3 Reply of Shri Manjul Kumar Joshi SecretaryGovernment of Uttrakhand Shri Manjul Kumar Joshi Secretary Government of Uttrakhand in his reply dated 2132014 while denying the allegations leveled by the complainant stated that after careful perusal of the report of Superintendent of Police it seems that the police took all the necessary action in the matter and hence the complaint was baseless and false 4 Reply of Shri Dilip Jawalkar the then District Magistrate Dehradun Shri Vinay Garg and Shri Vivek Gupta Advocates for the Respondent No 3 Shri Dilip Jawalkar the then District Magistrate Dehradun in his written dated Nil while denying the averment contentions and facts mentioned in the complaint related to him stated that the instant complaint made by the complainant was not maintainable as its redressal was beyond the jurisdiction of the Council He further stated that the entire complaint was vague baseless and was liable to be dismissed He has further demonstrated the correct factual position of the matter in detail which proves that he took action against the printing press of the petitioner not because of any personal tiff as alleged but because of a complaint of the local residents made to him It was obligation under law for a District Magistrate to take action available under law to stop nuisance caused by the printing press The petitioner alleged that an Appeal against the demolition was pending before the courtTribunal Since the matter is pending before the Court the Press Council cannot hold enquiry related to the pending proceeding in a Court of Law as per Sec 14(3) of the Press Council Act 1978 added by him

Rejoinder of the Complainant Shri SP Sabherwal the complainant submitted his rejoinder on 512015 on the reply of Shri Meharban Singh Bisht Shri Dilip Jawalkar and State of Uttarakhand He alleged that the various opposite parties had deliberately amp intentionally and illegally amp blindly misused their offices to cause damage and injury to him He further stated that Shri Meharban Singh Bisht was not the District Magistrate and also not the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and also he was not specifically empowered by the State Government to initiate proceedings or pass orders uS 133 Cr PC He denied the contents of the reply filed by Shri Dilip Jawalkar and stated that the reply was wrong and the respondent tried to conceal the truth to paint a wrong picture He further submitted that the reply filed by the State of Uttarakhand was frivolous and contemptuous of the august Press Council He alleged that the State Government is biased and against the independence of the press and publication of news reports not to the liking of State Government etc

Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 742015 at New Delhi Shri Manu Sabherwal represented on behalf of the complainant Shri Vivek Gupta Advocate appeared for Respondent no 1 amp 3 Shri Yashdeep Shrivastava appeared for Respondent no 4 amp 5 There was no representation on behalf of Respondent no 2 The Inquiry Committee heard the representative of the complainant as also the counsel of the respondent The representative of the complainant contended that their main grievance was against the closure of the press and the biased Government Order He submitted that the validity of the GO was challenged by him before this Council on the basis of which his property (ie Press Club) demolished and thereby infringing the freedom of press He alleged that the DM has no jurisdiction to issue the said GO He informed that a Writ Petition was filed by him to quash the order us 133 before the High Court of Uttrakhand but the said order was already withdrawn by the DMGovernment On the other hand the counsel of the respondent contended that the complaint was not maintainable He submitted that some local person made a complaint before the District Magistrate for the printing press being a public nuisance The DM on this complaint issued a notice to the complainant The complainant against this filed a petition before the High Court of Uttrakhand against the order under section 133 CrPC and the matter of nuisance is still pending there He submitted that since the matter is pending the case cannot be heard by the Press Council The respondent further contended that the complainant encroached an additional area in the property and the authority only directed to demolish the encroached area and not the entire building The Inquiry Committee carefully perused the record of the case and opined that the issue raised in the present complaint is pending for adjudgement before various authorities The Committee is therefore not inclined to proceed in the matter However the Committee would like to observe that the freedom of the Press being paramount all efforts be made to preserve the same The Committee accordingly recommended to the Council to dismiss the complaint with the aforesaid observation

Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to dismiss the complaint


Email pcimeetingsgmailcom Website httppresscouncilnicin Sl No 2 File No 1315113-14-PCI

Shri Geetartha Pathak President Journalist Union of Assam

Police Authorities Guwahati Government of Assam

Adjudication

Dated 7082015 Facts This email complaint dated 29122013 was filed by Shri Geetartha Pathak President Journalists Union of Assam against Police Authorities Government of Assam regarding harassment of the journalists He drew the attention of the Council towards a news item published in The Assam Tribune regarding assault on a group of seven journalists by the Guwahati Police on December 27 2013 According to the complainant the journalists went to the police station to gather the information related to an incident of clash between two groups of people which led to police assault on them apparently for alleged inconvenience created by the presence of the journalists to take bribe from the parties involved in the clash He requested the Council to register a complaint and take suitable action in the matter A report on the facts of the case was called from the Government of Assam and When no reply was received a Notice for Statement in Reply was issued on 1212015 to the Government of Assam Comments In response to Councilrsquos Notice for Statement in Reply dated 1212015 the Secretary to the Government of Assam (Home amp Political Department) Dispur Guwahati vide his reply dated 1732015 informed that the matter was investigated through Geetanagar Police Station and Fatasil Ambari Police Station and the enquiries against the delinquent police personnel was going on The report revealed that the mediaman Shri Davil Buragohain complainant of one of the cases had gone to Dispur police station on the intervening night of 27-28 December 2013 not for any journalistic duty but for seeking release of one of his friends who had been detained in the police Station on the basis of a complaint received at the police station Shri Burgohain became agitated when police refused to release his friend and thereafter

he returned to the police station with reinforcements of his colleagues for a show down with the police personnel on duty and thus the stage was set for an uncalled for situation As a result of confrontation following cases were registered

1) Dispur Police Station case No272813 us 323294342 IPC on the basis of

complaint by Shri Davind Buragohain and others against accused SI Arun Barua and others

2) Dispur Police Station case No272913 us 120(B) 448353506 IPC on the basis of complaint lodged by SBSI Kishore Kumar Kalita of Dispur Police Station against the accused David Buragohain media mn of News Live TV and others

Both the cases were under investigation however at present both the complainants expressed willingness to enter into a compromise and have prayed for dropping the case Though the cases cannot be dropped by the police merely on the basis of voluntary compromise of both the party It has been further informed that the below noted departmetal actions were initiated by the Sr SP City Guwahati after the incident against the police personnel allegedly involved-

1) Departmental proceeding No914 against the LNK Atul Ch Nath which is under enquiry by ACP Dispur

2) Departmental Proceeding No1014 against HC Binanda Barua which is under enquiry by ACP Dispur

3) Show-cause notice issued against ABSI Naba Kumar Barua and the contemplated Departmental Proceeding is dropped by the Disciplinary Authority on being satisfied with the explanation

4) Show cause notice issued against SI Arun Barua and the contemplated Departmental Proceeding is dropped by the Disciplinary Authority on being satisfied with the explanation

It has been further stated that the Inquiry Office of both the pending departmental proceedings against delinquent LNK Atual Ch Nath and HC Binanda Barua was directed to complete the respective enquiries as early as possible and submit findings without delay so that necessary disciplinary action can be ordered by the authority

A copy of the Comments was forwarded to the complainant Shri Geethartha Pathak on 3032015 for his counter comments

Counter Comments The complainant vide mail dated 3132015 filed his counter comments whereby he stated that in view of the assurance given by the police authority to avoid confrontational relation with media persons of the State and willingness of two of the other journalists involved in the case not to pursue the case with a request to the police to drop the case registered against them he requested the Council to dispose of the case with observation as deem fit in the particular case

Report of the Inquiry Committee

The matter was placed before the Inquiry Committee for appropriate disposal without calling the parties The Inquiry Committee perused the matter The Committee is of the opinion that since the complainant is no more interested to proceed in the matter it recommends for disposal of the matter Held

The Press Council on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and disposed of the complaint


Sl No 3 FNo1316413-14-PCI

Shri Ram Charan Mali Chief Editor Vanvasi Express Baran (Rajasthan)

The Chief Secretary Government of Rajasthan Jaipur The Director Information and Public Relations Department Government of Rajasthan Jaipur

Adjudication Dated 7082015

Facts

This complaint dated 812014 was filed by Shri Ram Charan Mali Chief Editor Vanvasi Express Hindi fortnightly Sahabad Baran (Rajasthan) against the Information amp Public Relations Department Government of Rajasthan Jaipur regarding non empanelment of his newspaper for Government advertisements and other facilities The complainant submitted that the respondent has been providing the government advertisements laptop Rs6000- and other facilities to the newspapers published from the district Kota and Baran but he is being deprived by the respondent from these facilities The complainant further submitted that letters dated 1712014 and 2212014 were addressed to the respondent-Government of Rajasthan in this regard but he received no reply However the respondent sent a letter dated 592013 advising him to send his application for advertisements through District Information amp Public Relations Officer Baran In response to this the complainant vide his undated letter received in the secretariat of the Council on 1542014 stated that he has been sending the requisite papers to the respondent since 1990 He also attached a copy of his letter dated 1222014 whereby the complainant provided the requisite papers for empanelment of his newspaper for government advertisements He requested the Council to take necessary action in the matter

A Notice for Statement in Reply to the respondent-Government of Rajasthan was issued on 1552014

Written Statement

The Additional Director Information amp Public Relations Department Jaipur in his written statement dated 2462014 submitted that they earlier sent

letters dated 5913 and 1542014 to the complainant for compliance of some relevant documents so that government advertisement could be issued but received no reply from him He further stated that as and when they receive the requisite information from the complainant the process to include the complainantrsquos newspaper in the list for issuance of Government advertisement will be started A copy of the written statement dated 2462014 was sent to the complainant on 1472014 for his counter comments

Counter Comments The complainant in his counter comments dated 22714 addressed to the

Additional Director (Registration) IampPRD Government of Rajasthan and copy endorsed to Press Council of India submitted that all the requisite documents have been submitted by him several times to the Information amp Public Relations Department since 1990

A copy of the counter comments of the complainant was sent to the respondent on 5814 for counter

Counter of the Respondent The respondent District Information amp Public Relations Officer Government of Rajasthan Baran vide his letter dated 21814 submitted that the complainant did not provide the requisite documents despite repeated requests and the last was made vide their letter dated 28714 but the complainant did not provided the requisite papers so far The Information amp Public Relations Officer Baran further stated that the complainant has also been requested telephonically to provide the requisite papers He further stated that the incomplete papers provided by the complainant were sent to the Additional Director for necessary action on 2032014 The Additional Director (Registration) IampPRD Government of Rajasthan Jaipur also filed his comments dated 2914 to the counter comments of the complainant stating that the complainant has not furnished the requisite information despite requesting him several time Only on receipt of the complete information the case of empanelment of the complainant paper for government advertisement will be processed Vide his further letter dated 2532015 the Additional Director (Rajasthan) IampPRD Government of Rajasthan Jaipur reiterated that they reminded the complainant many time for fulfillment of documents but he did not fulfill due to which has case was returned to District Information amp Public Relation Officer Baran on 9122014

A copy each of the counter comments of the respondents was sent to the complainant on 4914 amp 1792014

Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on

752015 at New Delhi Shri Dhirendra Kumar Editor Vanvasi Express appeared on behalf of the complainant while Shri GN Bhatt Additional Director Rajasthan Information amp Public Relations Department Rajasthan Information Centre Bikaner House New Delhi appeared for the respondent

The Inquiry Committee heard both the parties It noted that the complainant is aggrieved by non-empanelment of his newspaper for Government advertisement The respondent informed the Inquiry Committee that the complainant has not provided the requisite information for empanelment of his newspaper The complainant stated that as per the requirements of Rajasthan Vigyapan Niyam 2001 he complied with all the requirements He also stated that the Government give laptop to many other newspaper but not to his newspaper On this the respondent stated that the Government provided laptop to all the accredited Journalists last year The Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that in case the complainant does not fulfil the requirements the respondent will apprise him and after providing those documents the respondent shall then consider the prayer for empanelment However in case the complainant does not comply with the requirements its prayer for empanelment be rejected and the reasons thereof shall be communicated to him The Inquiry Committee accordingly recommends for dismissal of the complaint

Held The Press Council on consideration of the records of the case and report

of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and dismissed the complaint



Sl No 4 File No137013-14-PCI Shri Rajesh Dhayani Editor Jagrook Uttranachal Lansdowne Garhwal Uttrakhand amp Others

vs

Brig Vinod Raijada Garhwal Rifles Regiment Centre Garhwal Uttrakhand


This joint undated complaint received in the Secretariat of the Council on

1672013 was filed by Shri Kuldeep Khandelwal from Amar Ujala Shri Rajesh Dhyani from Jagrook Uttranchal and Shri Sandeep Agrawal from Dainik Jyant Lansdowne Garhwal Uttrakhand against the Garhwal Rifles Regimental Centre Garhwal Uttrakhand alleging double standards while inviting for news coverage and also for not issuing the advertisement to their newspapers They stated that the Garhwal Rifles only releases the advertisements to Dainik Jagran and Dainik Hindustan newspapers The complainants have alleged that the respondent boycotts the paper which writes critically against Garhwal Rifles and doesnrsquot invite them for the programme organized by the Regiment The complainants stated that the respondentrsquos discriminatory attitude towards them is due to publication of critical news items published by them regarding demolition of Lansdowne-Dumaila road constructed by the State Government

A Notice for Statement in Reply was issued to the respondent Brig Vinod Raijada Commandant Garhwal Rifles on 16122013

Written Statement The respondent vide his written statement dated 31122013 stated that no reporter was ever forced to publish news favouring him or his office He further stated that the Garhwal Rifles Regiment was established 100 years ago and many journalists have been publishing news on their significant programmesevent in their respective newspapers He denied the allegation levelled upon him that only one or two reporters are invited to cover the programmes and clarified that invitation for press coverage is extended to Journalist Organisation and Press and not to individual journalist As regards the demolition of Lansdowne-Dumaila Marg the action is being taken as per the rules by the higher authorities and Defence Estate Office (DEO) Thus the allegations levelled by the complainants against him were false and have defamed

the image of Garhwal Regiment Copy of written statement of the respondent was forwarded to the complainant on 1122014 for his counter comments

Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 862015 at Dehradun SShri Kuldeep Khandelwal ampRajesh Dhyani the complainants appeared in person whereas there was no representation on behalf of the respondent The Inquiry Committee heard the complainant in person The complainant informed the Committee that the respondent Brig Vinod Raijada Commandant Garhwal Rifles has retired from the service The Committee carefully perused the complaint and all other material available on record In the facts and circumstances of the case it opined that the complainant shall be well advised to request the Commanding Officer of Garhwal Rifles to allow him to cover functions which concern the people at large The Inquiry Committee hopes that if such a request is made the Commanding Officer shall consider the prayer in accordance with law In a light of aforesaid it recommended to the Council to dispose of the complaint Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to dispose of the complaint



Sl No 5 File No139513-14-PCI Shri Mumtaz Alam Khan Editor Hind Ki Kalam Haridwar Uttrakhand

vs

i) Chief Secretary Government of Uttrakhand Dehradun

ii) Information amp Public Relations Department

Government of Uttrakhand Dehradun iii) District Information Officer Haridwar (Uttrakhand)


This complaint dated 3082013 was filed by Shri Mumtaz Alam Khan Editor Hind Ki Kalam Haridwar Uttrakhand against the IampPRD Dehradun for deliberately stopping the advertisement release order The complainant stated that the respondent due to jealousy (as he belongs to Muslim community) deliberately ceased the advertisement order for 15th August to harass him mentally and financially The complainant stated that he went to the Directorate and requested them many time verbally and also gave written request on 2782013 but no reply was received

A Notice for Comments was issued on 1612014 to the Government of Uttrakhand

Comments of District Information Officer Haridwar The District Information Officer Haridwar in his comments dated 2412014 stated that his department had been regularly issuing advertisements release order to Hind Ki Kalam newspaper He further stated that no advertisement release order for 15th August 2013 received by him from the Directorate of IampPRD Government of Uttrakhand Thus his department neither stopped any advertisement release order nor harassed the complainant

Comments of Director General IampPRD The Director General IampPRD Government of Uttrakhand Dehradun in his

comments dated 2942014 while denying the allegations leveled by the complainant informed that the advertisements were not issued to the complainant due to non compliance of the Uttrakhand Advertisement Rules 2001(11) because the print on the front pages of his newspaper was not clear They had not done any discrimination with the newspaper and the allegation of the complainant is false and baseless

Further Counter Comments The complainant in his counter comments dated 2652014 reiterated his complaint and stated that he is not satisfied with the reply of the respondent Director General IampPRD He further stated that the reply of the respondent was false and baseless He also submitted that the Advertisement Rules 2001(11) is only for the register newspaper for getting the advertisements He further submitted that the respondent made false objection vis-agrave-vis non clarity of print wrt his newspaper Further Comments of Director General IampPRD

The Director General Information amp Public Relations Department Government of Uttrakhand in his further comments dated 2432015 while denying all the allegations levelled by the complainant submitted that the advertisements were not issued to the complainant due to non-clarity of the print and lot of mistakes on the front pages of the newspaper In support of his submission he had also enclosed some clippings of the newspaper He further stated that the complainant was not following the rules while publishing the paper The Department therefore stopped the advertisements release order to the newspaper Counter Comments The complainant in his counter comments dated 862015 stated that the reply of the respondent was false and baseless He further stated that there was no provision for stopping the advertisements release order contained in the Advertisement Rules 2001 He submitted that the errors which where pointed out by the respondent happened due to the technicalcomputer mistakes and more care will be taken in future in this regard He alleged that the respondent before stopping the release order had not given him any notice or opportunity for hearing

Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 862015 at Dehradun Shri Mumtaz Alam Khan the complainant appeared in person Shri Bhagwati Prasad Ghildyal Assistant Director IampPRD Govt of Uttrakhand Shri Pradeep Kumar Kothari representative of Information Office HDR and Shri Vinod Sharma Director General IampPRD Govt of Uttrakhand appeared for the respondent The Inquiry Committee heard the complainant and also the representative of the respondent The complainant contended that his newspaper is an empanelled newspaper and despite that the advertisement release order was not given to him He stated that the respondent gave the reason for stoppage of his advertisement release order was poor printing of his newspaper but he had not received any notice regarding

this On the other hand the respondentrsquos representative contended that due to some lsquoVartiya doshrsquo the complainantrsquos newspaper was not in panel but his newspaper is in panel now and all the advertisements are being released to his newspaper He further contended that in stopping the releasing order there was no bad intention of the department The Inquiry Committee carefully perused the complaint and all other connected papers It noted that the complainant was aggrieved by stopping of advertisement release order It observed that it is not the case of the complainant that because of any critical writings the respondent deliberately stopped the release order The respondents had given the reasons for withholding the release order by stating that there was no clarity in the printing of the newspaper In the face of it the Committee opined that the respondents had not withheld the release order for any ulterior reason and thus had not breached any journalistic ethics so as to call for any action It recommended to the Council to dismiss the complaint Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to dismiss the complaint



Sl No 6 File No1311413-14-PCI Thakur Manoj Kumar Editor Thakur Sahab Times Haridwar

vs

The Chief Secretary Government of Uttrakhand Dehradun The Director General Information amp Public Relations Department Government of Uttrakhand Dehradun The Joint Director Information and Publication Relations Department Government of Uttrakhand Dehradun


This complaint dated 8102013 was filed by Thakur Manoj Kumar Editor Thakur Sahab Times Haridwar Uttrakhand against the IampPRD Dehradun for delisting his newspaper from the panel of Government advertisements since August 2013 without issuing show cause notice The complainant stated that he approached to the Directorate for information in this regard but they orally informed that advertisements to more than 250 newspapers had been stopped on the order of the Director General Shri R Meenakshi Sundram According to him the respondent department stopped the advertisement as a reprisal measure due to an editorial written by their Additional Editor Dr Vinod Prasad Tiwari on 482013 He submitted that the respondent department did not take any action against big newspapers and released advertisements worth crore of rupees to them The complainant wrote a letter dated 2792013 to the respondent in this regard but received no reply A Notice for Statement in Reply to the respondent Government of Uttrakhand was issued on 2212014

-2-

Written Statement The Director General Information and Public Relations Department Government of Uttrakhand Dehradun in his written statement dated 1332014 stated that the department had been regularly releasing advertisements to Thakur Sahab Times for the period of January 2013 to July 2013 He also provided a copy of the letter (advertisement issued) to the above-said newspaper He further stated that as per the requirement of Uttrakhand Advertisement Rules 2001(11) the newspaper was considered to be regular when its publication was at least 80 as stipulated The publication of Thakur Sahab Times dropped down from the above said limit regularly ie in the month of June- 791 August-7180 and September-7208 and therefore the department stopped releasing advertisement to the paper The respondent department denied any discrimination meted out the complainantrsquos newspaper and denied his allegations as false and baseless

A copy of the written statement was sent to the complainant on 1542014 for his counter comments

Counter Comments The complainant in his counter comments dated 2342014 stated that reply of the respondent was false and baseless He also stated that publication of his newspaper has always been regular

Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 862015 at Dehradun There was no appearance on behalf of the complainant Shri Bhagwati Prasad Ghildyal Assistant Director IampPRD Govt of Uttrakhand and Shri Vinod Sharma Director General IampPRD Govt of Uttrakhand appeared for the respondent The Inquiry Committee carefully perused the complaint and all other material available on record It noted that the complainant was aggrieved by delisting of his newspaper from the panel of Government advertisements It further noted that the complainant filed an application dated 762015 stating therein that his case be decided on merits in his absence It noted the assertion of the respondent that the complainantrsquos paper was delisted for advertisement release as it had reproduced the editorial in his paper which was published in some other paper as well and besides the paperrsquos regularity had also decreased below the limit stipulated However the paper has now been empanelled for advertisement release In view of the aforesaid the Inquiry Committee opined that withholding of advertisements was in no way actuated by any malafide reasons It recommended to the Council to dismiss the complaint accordingly Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to dismiss the complaint



Sl No 7 File No134714-15-PCI Shri Janki Sharan Dwivedi General Secretary amp Shri Kailash Nath Verma President Uttar Pradesh Shramjivi Journalists Union Gonda

vs

The Chief Secretary Government of UP

The Secretary Home (Police) Department Government of UP

The Chief Security Commissioner Eastern Railway UP

The CRPF Inspector Gonda Uttar Pradesh


Shri Janki Sharan Dwivedi General Secretary amp Shri Kailash Nath Verma President Uttar Pradesh Shramjivi Journalist Union Gonda filed their complaint dated 762014 amp 1592014 respectively against the RPF Inspector Gonda Uttar Pradesh for misbehaving with media persons Shri Janki Sharan stated that he himself alongwith Shri Kailash Nath Verma went to cover the news at Railway Reservation Center and while conversing the people who were standing in queue they took their photograph Some touts informed about this to Shri JP Singh Superintendent of Railway Security Force who came on the spot and snatched the camera of media persons by saying that photography is banned in this area Then the Superintendent of Railway Security Force detained unauthorizedly three journalists viz Shri Kailsh Nath Verma Shri Mahendra Tiwari and Shri Rajeshwar Dayal for two hours Shri Singh also threatened these journalists by saying that ldquoif the recording is not deleted you will be released only on bail after filling the bondrdquo The complainants further stated that they were insulted by Shri JP Singh RPF Inspector in front of hundreds of peoples A Notice for Comments was issued to the respondent on 17112014

Comments of Chief Security Commissioner Gorakhur The Chief Security Commissioner Gorakhpur in his comments dated 15122014 informed that the matter was investigated through IVGRPF and found that on 662014 the complainants went to Reservation Center and shot a video though they orally took permission from the Chief Public Relation Officer but they did not inform the RPF Inspector The respondent further stated that there was no misbehaviour as alleged by the complainants He also stated that the information under RTI Act was also provided to the complainant

Comments of SP Gonda Shri Bharat Singh Superintendent of Police Gonda in his comments dated 1512015 informed that the matter was investigated through the Additional Superintendent of Police Gonda who submitted the report and the said report stated that the incident occurred was related to Railway Station Gonda The investigation in matter seems to be justifiable if it may be got done from Sr Railway Officer

Comments of Under Secretary Govt of UP

Shri Harish Chnader Under Secretary to the Govt of UP vide his letter dated 2752015 submitted an Investigation Report dated 1852015 conducted by the Superintendent of Police Railways Gorakhpur in which it was stated that no evidences were found against the RPF Inspector regarding the allegations of misbehavior levelled by the complainant


The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 862015 at Dehradun Shri Kailash Nath Verma the complainant appeared in person whereas Shri Jai Prakash Singh Inspector RPF Budwal the respondent appeared in person The Inquiry Committee heard the complainant as well the respondent It carefully perused the complaint and all other connected papers It noted the assertion of the respondent that his intention was not to humiliate the complainant and he also expressed his regret He further assured that he will not repeat it in future In view of the aforesaid the Inquiry Committee is not inclined to proceed further against the respondent It recommended to the Council to dispose of the complaint accordingly Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to dispose the complaint



Sl No 8 File No132814-15-PCI Shri Keshav Dutt Chandola National President Association of Small and Medium Newspapers of India Kanpur UP

vs

The Chief Secretary Government of Uttar Pradesh Lucknow The Secretary Home(Police) Department Government of UP Lucknow District Magistrate Kanpur Nagar Government of UP Commissioner Kanpur Nagar Kanpur UP Shri Rakesh Kumar Press Magistrat ACM-3 Kanpur Nagar Kanpur


This complaint dated 2352014 was filed by Shri Keshav Dutt Chandola National President Association of Small and Medium Newspapers of India Kanpur UP against the Press Magistrate ACM-3 Kanpur UP The complainant stated that he had submitted documents relating to recognition of their Association by the Press Council of India to the Press Magistrate ACM-3 for attestation but he allegedly misbehaved with him and threw his papers away When the complainant tried to explain the fact to ACM-3 his staff and policeman forced him to go out of the room Later on he sent the paper attested from the City Magistrate

A Notice for Statement in reply was issued to the Government of UP on 1872014

Written Statement The Additional City Magistrate (III) Kanpur Nagar in his written statement dated

2872014 informed that when the complainant came to him for the attestation his guards stopped him at the door by saying that there is heavy rush inside the room but he forcibly came to his room and pressurized him to sign the letter and when he was asked to come on next day he got annoyed and left the room He further stated that the complainantrsquos allegation was false and baseless Counter Comments

The complainant in his counter comments dated 892014 stated that the statement of the Additional City Magistrate-III Kanpur Nagar was totally false and misleading He submitted that when he went for attestation of documents ACM-3 asked the judicial assistant if such attestation had been done earlier also to which the assistant replied that this has been for the first time Hearing this the ACM refused to see the Councilrsquos letter and threw the paper

Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 962015 at Dehradun There was no appearance on behalf of the complainant while Shri Sandeep Ahalmad (ACM-III) represented on behalf of the respondent The Committee noted that despite service of notice the complainant has not chosen to appear and in fact sent a letter seeking adjournment in the matter The ground mentioned in the application in the opinion of the Committee cannot be said to be a valid ground for adjournment In the facts of the case the Committee rejects his request The Inquiry Committee heard the representative of the respondent It also carefully perused the complaint and all other connected papers and opined that any act of the respondent pertaining to the attestation of papers for association did not in any way affect the freedom of the press and therefore was not within the jurisdiction of the Council It recommended to the Council to dismiss the complaint Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to dismiss the complaint



Sl No 9 File No138313-14-PCI Shri Dayanand Sharma Journalist Sanskar Times Moradabad

vs

The Chief Secretary Government of UP Lucknow The Secretary Home Police Department Government of UP Lucknow The SSP Moradabad (UP)


This complaint dated 1852013 was addressed to Honrsquoble Chief Minister of UP and its copy inter alia was endorsed to PCI by Shri Dayanand Sharma Reporter Sanskar Times Moradabad The complainant alleged that he was being harassed by the Moradabad police The complainant stated that on 1252013 at 800 pm while on a personal event he saw that Shri Rajender Singh Inspector Civil Lines alongwith other police force looking for Mr Maheshrsquos wife and two others The complainant took out his notebook and wanted to know about the incident the police personnel informed him that he had no concern with the incident When the complainant showed his identity card to the Inspector and said that he had come for the coverage of news the Inspector flared up and tore his Identity Card and snatched an amount of Rs 1620- from him and locked him in the police station by imposing Section 13 of Gambling Act and also took his signature on blank paper forcefully A Notice for Comments was issued to the respondent Government of UP on 322014 As no reply was received in the matters a Notice for Statement in Reply was issued to the respondent Government of UP on 212015 Written Statement The Sr Superintendent of Police Moradabad in his written statement dated 2112015 informed that the matter was investigated through Superintendent of Police Moradabad and in his report he stated that the complainant and others were

arrested on the charge of gambling After frisking the police confiscated Rs18600- in cash and case No29813 us 13 of the Gambling Act was registered again and subsequently therein all the four accused also got bail On the evidence available on record charge sheet no128 dated 1952013 was filed before the Honrsquoble court On 2092013 the court imposed fine on all the four accused of Rs100- each as penalty and dropped the matter Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 962015 at Dehradun Shri Dayanand Sharma the complainant appeared in person whereas Shri Rajiv Kumar Sub-Inspector Civil Lines Moradabad appeared for the respondent The Committee heard the complainant in person as also the representative of the respondent The complainant reiterated the allegation of that while discharging his journalistic duties he was arrested by the police and an amount of Rs 1620- and his Identity Card were snatched from him while covering an incident The respondent on the other hand submitted that complainant was arrested in a gambling case and a sum of Rs 18600 was recovered from him and other accused The Inquiry Committee took note of the fact that the police after investigation had submitted the charge sheet and the case was dropped by the Magistrate after imposing a fine of Rs 100- This was refuted by the complainant and asserted that the case is still pending for trial Be that as it may as the subject matter of the allegation made in the complaint is pending for consideration before the magistrate the Inquiry Committee is not inclined to proceed in the matter As observed earlier the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) in his reply stated that a criminal case lodged against the complainant was disposed of after imposing the fine which had been denied by the complainant The Committee further observed that the complainantrsquos stand contradicted with the statement made by the SSP It advised the SSP to be more careful in future while submitting his reply In view of the aforesaid the Inquiry Committee recommended the Council to dispose of the complaint Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to dispose of the complaint



Sl No 10 File No1311913-14-PCI Shri Mahant Bhagwati Pratap Das 1 The Chief Secretary Correspondent Dainik Aaj vs Govt of UP Lucknow Barabanki UP 2 Shri Prabhat Mittal Information Director IampPRD Lucknow UP 3 Smt Abhilasha Kulshresta Chairman Accreditation Committee and Joint Director IampPRD Lucknow UP 4 Shri Syed Ahmed Hussain Dy DirectorMember Accreditation Committee IampPRD Lucknow UP 5 Dr Ashok Kumar Sharma Dy DirectorMember Accreditation Committee IampPRD Lucknow UP 6 Shri Tejveer Singh Dy Director IampPRD Lucknow UP 7 Dr Vishvanath Tripathi Dy DirectorConvenor Accreditation Committee Lucknow UP


This complaint dated 24102013 was filed by Shri Mahant Bhagwati Pratap Das Correspondent Dainik Aaj Barabanki UP against the Director IampPRD Govt of UP alleging discrimination in granting accreditation to him due to reprisal measure as many officers of Govt of UP had been summoned in a PIL filed by him He alleged that despite compliance of all formalities as prescribed by the Department the IampPRD did not grant him accreditation whereas they granted accreditation to 14 other journalists and this act of the Government was in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India which provides equal rights to every citizen The complainant stated that the act of the respondent by not granting accreditation amounts to curtailment of freedom of press The complainant further stated that he drew the attention of the respondents towards this discrimination vide his letters dated 9102013 and 24102013 He also filed an RTI on 24102013 in this regard whereby in response to it the respondent provided the documents related to the wages of those journalists who were granted accreditation A Notice for Statement in Reply was issued to the respondents on 2632014 for their written statements Written Statement The Director IampPRD Lucknow UP in his written statement dated 2442014 stated that a Meeting of the Committee on Press Accreditation was held on 1062013 and the case of the complainant was listed before it for consideration He further submitted that the Additional Information Director while forwarding the minutes of the meeting to the complainant on 1392013 requested him to furnish the documents relating to his appointment and wages to the Department but he did not furnish the same The complainant demanded some information from the department through RTI which was duly provided to him Further he submitted that after the notice of the Council the department again demanded the requisite documents from the complainant vide its letter dated 1842014 which was furnished by the complainant The Committee after considering the complainantrsquos document found it satisfactory and decided to grant accreditation to him Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 962015 at Dehradun There was no appearance on behalf of the complainant whereas Dr Ashok Kumar Sharma Joint Director Shri Atul Mishra Assistant Director and Shri Pradeep Verma Nodal Officer IampPRD Govt of UP Lucknow appeared for the respondent The Committee heard the respondent It noted that the allegation of the complainant was that he was denied accreditation without any justification The plea of the respondent was that the complainant had not furnished the required documents and therefore he was not given accreditation He also submitted that later on the complainant furnished the requisite documents and the accreditation was

granted to him It seems that the complainant is satisfied with that and therefore not represented on the day of the hearing before the Inquiry Committee Further Dr Ashok Kumar Sharma Joint Director IampPRD Govt of UP Lucknow assured that the Rules for Advertisement and Accreditation in conformity with Model Rules framed by the Press Council of India shall be finalised and published within one month The Inquiry Committee took on record the assurance and observed that it expected from the State Government that they would carry out their commitment within the time period specified by them The Committee recommended to the Council to dispose of the complaint in terms of aforesaid undertaking Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to dispose of the complaint on above terms It further directed that Action Taken Report be sought from the Government on the assurance held out by its representative during the course of hearing



Sl No 11 File No1314513-14-PCI Mohd Javed Kazmi 1 The Director OwnerPublisherEditor vs DAVP New Delhi Purvanchal Leher Mau Uttar Pradesh 2 The Director IampPRD Govt of UP Luknow UP


This complaint dated 20122013 was filed by Mohd Javed Kazmi OwnerPublisherEditor Purvanchal Leher Mau UP against the DAVP New Delhi for non-renewal of empanelment of his newspaper by the DAVP despite fulfilment of all the formalities and against the IampPRD Lucknow UP for non-renewal of empanelment of his newspaper and non issuance of Press accreditation by the IampPRD Lucknow despite completion of all the formalities The complainant submitted that his newspaper is being published since 1997 regularly and has also been listed with the UP Information Department since 2010 He further submitted that he applied for DAVP empanelment on 492010 on 2882012 and 1822013 while fulfilling all the requirements but he received no reply He alleged that despite several applications and completing all the formalities he did not get the DAVP empanelment A Notice for Statement in Reply was issued to the respondents on 2212014 for their comments in the matter Written Statement of Additional District Information Officer Dr Jitendra Pratap Singh Additional District Information Officer in his written statement dated 1432014 stated that the application of the complainant regarding accreditation is pending with the Directorate He further stated that the newspaper is empanelled with the Govt of UP and after compliance of formalities action for renewal is to be taken by the Directorate Written Statement of Dy Director IampPRD Shri Ashok Kumar Banerjee Dy Director IampPRD UP Luknow in his written statement dated 1042014 informed that the complainantrsquos newspaper had not been

empanelled for advertisements and renewal could only be possible for those newspapers who are empanelled for advertisements He further submitted that the complainant had not attached the order of empanelment along with his application He submitted that his application had now been processed afresh and for which letters were issued to the DM Mau and the Superintendent of Police Mau on 1332014 for obtaining the report on the complainantrsquos newspaper which was awaited He also submitted that as and when they received the report the processing of his application would began as per rules Counter Comments The complainant in his counter comments dated 662014 while narrating the whole facts stated that he published some news items against the present Additional Dy Director Shri Murlidhar Singh due to which the he carries grudge against him He submitted that Shri Murlidhar had an important role in issuing press accreditation He requested the Council to direct the DAVP and UP Govt for empanelment of advertisement as well as to issue accreditation to him which is pending since 2010 before the UP Govt DAVP Reply The Media Executive DAVP vide his letter dated 2272014 has submitted that the newspaper Purvanchal Leher Hindi weekly was not on approved panel of DAVP as the publisher of Hindi weekly had not applied online for empanelment as per record He further submitted that contents of the complainantrsquos letter pertain to UP Government and the DAVP had no comments to offer them Reply of Additional District Information Officer Dr Jitendra Pratap Singh vide his letter dated 2272014 submitted that the Committee meeting on Press Accreditation conducted at Directorate level on 1462013 and the application of the complainant was presented before it The Committee considered the LIU report and found it negative and therefore it decided to reject the application of the complainant The Committee decided to reconsider the complainantrsquos application after receiving the LIU report Complainant Counter Comments The complainant in his comments dated 2692014 submitted that the reply given by the DAVP was completely false and misleading He submitted that he fulfilled all the requirements of application He sent his printed application along with 18 months newspaperrsquos copies to the DAVP via registered post but no reply was received from the DAVP He alleged that the DAVP furnished wrong information in the Council Complainant further letter The complainant vide his letter dated 25112014 addressed to the Director DAVP has informed that there was no online registration facility available in the DAVP in the year 2010 and he filed a PDF application printed through registered post and did not

get any information from the DAVP He also alleged that the objections made by the DAVP in 2013 were wrong and baseless Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 962015 at Dehradun There was no appearance on behalf of the complainant Shri Chandan Singh DEO (Grade lsquoArsquo) DAVP New Delhi appeared for Respondent no 1 ie DAVP New Delhi whereas Dr Ashok Kumar Sharma Joint Director Shri Atul Mishra Assistant Director and Shri Pradeep Verma Nodal Officer IampPRD Lucknow appeared for Respondent no 2 ie IampPRD Lucknow UP The Committee heard the representatives of both the respondent It noted that the complainant was aggrieved by the non-empanelment of his newspaper by the DAVP as also the Director of Information amp Public Relation Department of UP It further noted the assertion of the representative of the DAVP that the claim of the complainant was considered and rejected as far back in February 2013 The committee observed that the complainant he given liberty to file a fresh application before the DAVP complying with all the requirements In case the complainant makes request for his empanelment and satisfies all the eligibility criteria the DAVP shall consider and take final decision within six months from the date of the application In case the DAVP rejects the claim of the complainant a brief reason thereof be recorded and communicated to the complainant As regards the non-empanelment of the complainantrsquos newspaper by the Director IampPRD of the State Government of UP it was stated by the representative of Respondent no 2 that now the LIU Report has been received final decision in this regard shall be taken and communicated to the complainant within four weeks In view of the aforesaid the Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council to dispose of the complaint Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to dispose of the complaint



Sl No12 File No130514-15-PCI Shri Awadh Kishore Jaiswal 1 The SHO District Correspondent vs Kotwali Sadar Daily News Activist L akhimpur Khiri Lakhimpur Khiri UP UP 2 The Chief Secretary Govt of UP 3 The Secretary Home (Police) Deptt Govt of UP 4 The Director General of Police Lucknow Govt of UP 5 The Inspector General of Police Lucknow Zone UP 6 The District Magistrate Lakhimpur Khiri UP 7 The Superintendent of Police Lakhimpur Khiri UP


This complaint dated 2232014 was filed by Shri Awadh Kishore Jaiswal District Correspondent Daily News Activist UP against the SHO Kotwali Sadar Lakhimpur Khiri UP for allegedly misbehaving and threatening to implicate him in false case due to coverage of news In his complaint the complainant stated that he received a phone call on 1732014 that the lock of his nephewrsquos wine shop was broken As his nephew was out of town the complainant himself went to the place of incident and from there made a complaint on phone to the SHO of the city but the SHO asked him to file a written complaint in the Police Station He stated that when he alongwith the two other journalists Shri Kamal Mishra and Shri Ashok Shukla went to the police station for filing the complaint the moment he introduced himself and the other two as journalists to the SHO the SHO started shouting and abusing him The SHO thereafter started beating him and also tried to put him and other two journalists behind the bars He alleged that the SHO without informing him about his crimefault filed a false case against him under Abkari Act After around two hours the SHO released him with a threat that if he published about this incident in any newspaper or informed anyone then he would implicate the complainant in false case and put him behind the bars The complainant vide his letter dated 392014 submitted the statements of his two fellow journalists Shri Kamal Mishra and Shri Ashok Shukla who were present with the complainant in the police station They both in their statement stated that the SHO misbehaved with the complainant amp threatened to implicate him in false case Apart from this the complainant gave some other relevant information that the time of FIR ie 1130 am as mentioned by the SHO was wrong as he was at his home till 1215 pm on that day and this fact can be verified by tracking the location of his phone The complainant also mentioned about a CD of the incident in his letter but the CD was not found alongwith the letter A Notice for Comments in the first instance was issued to the respondent and Govt of Uttar Pradesh on 482014 for their comments Comments of Superintendent of Police Khiri Shri Arvind Sen Superintendent of Police Khiri vide his letter dated 2492014 filed his comments along with an Investigation Report filed by Shri SC Shrivastava Circle Officer Sadar Khiri In his comments he stated that the Area Abkari Inspector (First) Khiri arrested the complainant on 1732014 for violation of the rules of Liquor License as 15 desi liquor packets were seized from him Regarding this a case bearing No 64214 us 6064-B Abkari Act was filed against the complainant and others by the SHO in Kotwali Sadar Khiri and the complainant was released thereafter on bail It was further stated that the complainant after getting the bail started shouting at the gate of the police station that lsquohe has to leave the India because had he performed some crime by selling liquor for which he had a license The Incharge Inspector Kotwali Sadar amp Investigating Officer were directed in the report to complete the said case against

the complainant filed in the police station as early as possible He alleged that the complainant is of criminal nature and many cases were pending against him Counter Comments The complainant vide his letter dated 2892014 submitted that the investigation report prepared by the CO (City) is completely self-made and based on false facts as neither the Circle Officer informed him about the investigation nor recorded his or his any fellow journalists statement He further alleged that there are many criminal cases were registered against the respondent SHO in the matter of murder and loot The Complainant in his further comments dated 21102014 also stated that the report submitted by the Circle Officer was completely baseless misleading and one-sided in order to save the SHO Further letter of Superintendent of Police Khiri In response to the Councilrsquos letter dated 14112014 Shri Arvinde Sen Superintendent of Police Khiri in his further letter dated 422015 while reiterating the same facts of the case furnished an Investigation Report of Additional Superintendent of Police Khiri in the matter stating the allegations levelled by the complainant were found false Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 962015 at Dehradun There was no appearance on behalf of the complainant whereas Shri MP Singh Dy SP- CO City Lakhimpur Shri M Jaiswal Lakhimpur Shri Rajiv Pandey Advocate Lalitpur and Shri Ishtiyal Barabanki UP appeared for the respondent The Committee heard the Counsel for the respondent It noted that the allegation of the complainant was that for his critical writings he was arrested in a false case and later on released on bail It also noted the contention of the respondent that the complainant was arrested in a liquor case and after investigation a charge sheet no 3252014 had been filed before the competent court It further noted the assertion of the complainant that the allegation made against him was false but this was denied by the respondent The Committee observed that the matter is pending before competent criminal court and have declined to proceed further in the matter The Inquiry Committee recommended to the Council to dispose of the complaint accordingly Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to dispose of the complaint



Sl No 13 FNo1313612-13-PCI Shri Ahmed Bharti The Director Editor NaiAawaj Vs DAVP Haridwar Uttrakhand New Delhi


This complaint dated 922013 was filed by Shri Ahmed Bharti Editor Nai Aawaj Urdu Dainik Haridwar against DAVP for alleged deliberate disqualification of his paper for empanelment of Advertisements on the basis of (i) Poor printing (ii) Matter illegible (iii) Smudgyno photographs and (iv) Cut pastecomputer printout without giving him any opportunity of clarification or intimation despite completion of all the requisite formalities required by them for empanelment According to him the DAVP had a discriminatory attitude towards Urdu small and medium newspapers The complainant stated that he had applied to the DAVP for empanelled newspaper on 2982012 but the name of his newspaper was not found in the list of empanelled newspaper released on 27122012 When he checked the website it was found that due to ldquoPoor printing Matter not readable Smudgy or no photographs Cut paste computer printoutregularity certificate not submittedrdquo his application was rejected He further stated that on 312013 when he met the concerned Director DAVP regarding this then they removed the objection of lsquoRegularity certificate not submittedrsquo but did not remove other objections ldquoClause 8 of DAVP Policy provides 35 (approx) classified and display advertisements to regional and other languages including Urdu newspapers with a circulation of upto 25000 copiespublishing days It further provides special encouragement for languages newspapers for empanelment after six months of regular and uninterrupted publication Further the printed matter and photograph should be legible neat clear and without smudges overwriting and tamperingrdquo A Notice for Statement in Reply was issued to the respondent on 1642013 for their comments

Comments of DAVP The DAVP vide letter dated 352013 stated that the media particularsissues submitted by the complainant were scrutinized and the case was placed before the Panel Advisory Committee (PAC) for its consideration whereby the Committee did not approve the paper due to smudgy photos and poor printing found in the issues submitted by the complainant for empanelment It also stated that the details for rejection and the reasons thereof were placed on the website for complainantrsquos perusal and written communication was also sent to him It further stated that the allegations levelled by the complainant against DAVP regarding discrimination or a particular language or favouring other newspapers are totally baseless and devoid of facts Counter Comments of the Complainant The complainant vide letter dated 162013 stated that the DAVP had rejected his application on two grounds ie (i) Poor Printing matter not readable etc and (ii) Regularity Certificate not submitted but according to him his newspaper printing is very fine and he had already submitted his regularity certificate to DAVP The complainant Shri Ahmed Bharti vide his another letter dated 252014 alleged that DAVP had a discriminatory attitude towards his newspaper in issuing advertisements despite empanelment of his newspaper by the DAVP The complainant further believed that his newspaper was blacklisted by the DAVP He submitted that the DAVP issued advertisements to all other newspapers regularly except his newspaper In this regard he wrote a letter dated 742014 to the Additional Director General Shri MV Reddy DAVP but received no reply Reply of DAVP

The DAVP vide its letter dated 372014 informed the Council that the media particularsissues submitted by the publisher of Hindi Daily Nai Awaz were scrutinized and placed before PAC which was held from 2112014 to 2412014 for its consideration The PAC members had recommended the daily for empanelment and it has been on DAVP panel from 1922014 Complainantrsquos Reply

Shri Ahmed Bharti vide his letter dated 682014 agreed that the DAVP had empanelled his newspaper Nai Aawaj Urdu daily but they had not released any advertisement to his newspaper He alleged that they still had a discriminatory attitude towards his newspaper on the basis of language and racism He submitted that the DAVP releases advertisements to all other newspapers regularly except his newspaper In this regard he wrote a letter dated 742014 to the Additional Director General Shri MV Reddy DAVP but received no reply He further alleged DAVP intentionally stopped releasing advertisements to his newspaper as he had registered a complaint against them before Press Council of India

Further Reply of DAVP The DAVP vide its letter dated 1692014 stated that the Urdu daily

Nai Aawaj published from Roorkee had been given space measuring 1233 sq Cms amounting to Rs 14138- during current financial year 2014-2015 (upto 1192014) He further stated that advertisements were released keeping in view of the objective of the client MinistriesDepartments the content target audience for the advertisement and availability of funds in consultation with client MinistriesDepartments as per clause-16 of Advertisement Policy Complainantrsquos Further Reply The complainant vide his letter dated 27102014 informed that the letter received from the respondent on 1692014 was beyond the truth and they had a discriminatory attitude toward his newspaper on the basis of language and racism He further informed that his newspaper was not getting any advertisements for publication Further Response of DAVP

The DAVP vide its letter dated 1562015 alleged that the Council instead of considering their reply dated 1692014 issued a notice for appearance dated 16122014 He also stated that the DAVP had not receive any notice dated 32015 issued by the Council as per their record He further alleged that the instant complaint did not fall within the purview of the Council and hence the complainant has no locus standi to bother the PCI over this matter

Report of the Inquiry Committee Following three adjournments dated 2282013 612015 and 752015 the matter came up for final hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 672015 at New Delhi Shri Asjad Bharti Advocate appeared for the Complainant Shri NV Reddy ADG Shri DM Kakadie Director Shri BP Meena Media Executive and Shri SK Mohanty AME appeared for the respondent The Inquiry Committee heard the Counsel for the complainant as also the respondent The Counsel for the complainant while reiterating his complaint contended that his main objection is on the quantity of the advertisements given to him by the DAVP He further contended that he had received only six advertisements in the financial year 2014-2015 from the DAVP He also contended that the DAVP empanelled him only after the direction of the Press Council On being asked by the Inquiry Committee to the complainantrsquos Counsel that whether he gave any evidence on his contention that he had received only six advertisements while other newspaper received more than 100 advertisements he replied that the statistics in this regard are available on the website of DAVP but he failed to produce documents in support of his contention before the Committee On the other hand the Committee asked the respondent that why they initially not empanelled the complainant newspaper and then after Committeersquos direction why they empanelled the newspaper despite the fact that the print of the newspaper was smudgy and poor The respondent replied that since the complainant filed new copies of the newspaper which the PAC found satisfactory and thus empanelled it The respondent contended that at present there are three dailies from Roorkie ie i) Param Nagrik ndash received six advertisements ii)

Swatantra Bharat Satta ndash received two advertisements and iii) Nai Awaj (Complainantrsquos newspaper) ndash received six advertisements He further contended that there are many newspapers which get only one advertisement He stated that the release of advertisement is governed by various factors and consideration and empanelment of newspaper by the DAVP is an enabling provision whereby newspaper become eligible to get advertisements and that empanelment doesnrsquot mean that paper can demand quantitative advertisement from the Government The Inquiry Committee carefully perused the record of the case and noted that in pursuance of the Committeersquos Order dated 752015 the Director General DAVP appeared in person who assured the Committee that henceforth the DAVP will represented by an officer not below the rank of the Director The Inquiry Committee took on record the statement of Director General DAVP The Committee noted that the complainant is aggrieved by unsatisfactory number of advertisements released by the respondent to complainantrsquos paper It was informed by the respondent that the complainant newspaper is published from the Roorkie so also the two other newspapers namely Param Nagrik and Swatantra Bharat Satta It was pointed out that six advertisements have been given to the complainantrsquos paper and other two newspapers were given not more than six advertisements In view of the aforesaid the Inquiry Committee opined that no action is called for against the respondent in the present case It recommended to the Council to dismiss the complaint accordingly Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to dismiss the complaint



Sl No 14 File No 132114-15- PCI Shri Subhash Chandra Sharma Journalist Bijnor UP

Vs 1 The Chief Secretary Govt of UP UP

2 The Secretary Home (Police) Department Govt of UP UP

3 The Director General of Police Govt of UP Lucknow 4 The District Magistrate Janpad Bijnor UP 5 The SHO Kiratpur Janpad Bijnor UP 6 Shri Abdul Mannaan Kiratpur Janpad Bijnor UP


This complaint dated 952014 was filed by Shri Subash Chandra Sharma Correspondent of Rashtriya Sahara and Public Emotion Kiratpur Bijnor UP against Shri Abdul Mannan Husband of Smt Rubina Mannan Chairperson of Kiratpur Municipal Committee for threatening to kill him due to his critical writings The complainant stated that Shri Abdul Mannan and his brother were history sheeters and

many criminal cases had been filed against them He further stated that the respondent being aggrieved over the critical news items published by him kept threatening him and his family members He submitted that he had reported on many illegal activities of the Chairperson Kiratpur Municipal Committee and as a reprisal measure her husband Shri Abdul Mannan the defecto Chairperson and his brother had been threatening him to stop such publications The complainant his apprehended being attacked by the respondent The complainant also stated that due to the fear of the respondent he had shifted his residence He alleged that the administration instead of helping him initiated a proceeding against him us 10716 Cr PC A Notice for Statement in Reply was issued to the respondents on 682014 for their written statement Comments The respondent Shri Abdul Mannan in his written statement dated 2582014 stated that the allegation of the complainant that he made his wife the Chairperson of Kiratpur Municipal Committee by threatening the people of Kiratpur is completely false as his wife had won the election He further stated that the complainant made an unauthorized construction of his garage on the govt land which was reserved for digging the well The Municipal Committee sent a Notice no 33012 dated 212013 to the complainant regarding this along with concrete evidence Aggrieved with this action of the Municipal Committee the complainant kept on pressurizing the Municipal Committee to withdraw the Notice He alleged that the complainant made this false complaint in order to pressurize his wife He informed that an investigation had been initiated by the District Magistrate in the matter of encroachment of the govternment land illegally by the complainant He further submitted that the other reason of filing this complaint was that the complainant wants to pressurize the Municipal Committee to withdraw the case filed in connection with encroachment of land of crores of rupees which was pending before the Honrsquoble Allahabad High Court He also alleged that the complainant personally told him that if the Municipal Committee is ready to help the complainant then he would withdraw his complaint He further charged that the complainant himself with criminal conduct asserting that two case no 28910 us 353504506 IPC 3(1)5 SCST Act and no 233A96 us 147307504506 IPC were filed against the complainant and he was a history sheeter Counter Comments The complainant in his undated counter comments stated that the respondent shri Abdul Mannan furnished false and baseless facts in his written statement He alleged that the respondent Shri Mannan has criminal background and his brother was a history sheeter He further denied the allegation that he had encroached the land of Municipal Committee and constructed garage thereon or that he had encroached land worth crores of rupees from the Municipal Committee as no property or any treasure was registered in his name and no matter is pending in this regard in Allahabad High Court However a case was filed before the Allahabad High Court against him wrt dispute relating to right of access to road which was dismissed on

2672013 against the Municipal Committee whereby the thorough fare was opened for general public He submitted that he neither demanded any help from the Chairperson Municipal Corporation nor he ever met her in this regard He further submitted that the respondent did not furnish any evidence in support of his allegation that he (complainant) pressurized the Municipal Committee Further Comments The respondent authorities Home Deptt UP and DIG Lucknow endorsed the report of Superintendent of Police Bijnor dated 1132015 stating that an investigation conducted by the Circle Officer Nazibabad Bijnor found that on 2742014 the complainant was protesting against the construction of Welcome Gate at Kiratpur by the Municipal Committee and during that protest a clash took place between the complainant and the brother of the respondent Abdul Mannan The Police filed a case us 10716 Cr PC against both the parties and imposed a fine of Rs 5 lakhs on both It was also stated in the investigation report that no such matter had come to the notice of police that the Chairperson Municipal Corporation of Kiratpur had obtained the vote during election by threatening the people It was also mentioned in the report that many cases are registered against the brother-in-law of Smt Rubina Mannan Chairperson of Kiratpur Municipal Committee Counter Comments The complainant in his counter comments dated 642015 stated that he was in no way connected with the incident of Welcome Gate He alleged that the respondent have tried to link his case with the incident of Welcome Gate He informed that the brother-in-law of Smt Rubina Mannan attacked him and he had no grudge against Smt Rubina Mannan Chairperson Municipal Corporation of Kiratpur He further stated that the police accepted registration of cases against Shri Abdul Mannan and his brother but the police had not mentioned in his report that both were the history sheeter He alleged that in this report many other cases were also mentioned in which the complainant had no role at all The complainant submitted that the police tried to give a new direction to his case by ignoring the main facts of the incident happened with him

Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 672015 at New Delhi Shri Subhash Chandra Sharma the complainant appeared in person whereas respondent no 6 Shri Abdul Mannan appeared in person along with his advocate Shri Shashank There was on appearance on behalf of other respondents The Inquiry Committee heard the complainant in person as also the Counsel for respondent no 6 It carefully perused the record of the case and the report of the police and observed that because of the alleged dispute between the complainant and the Kiratpur Municipal Committee the complainant approached the Council It opined that the allegations made by the complainant that the respondent is harassing him as a reprisal measure is misconceived The Complainant was advised to take

recourse to any other remedy available in law It recommended to the Council to dispose of the complaint accordingly Held The Press Council on consideration of records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts reasons findings and adopts the report of the Committee and decided to dispose of the complaint



Sl No15 File No 136914-15-PCI

Shri Mahant Jawala Prasad Assistant Editor Hathras Gaurav Hathras UP

vs

The Chief Secretary Government of UP Lucknow The Secretary Home (Police) Department Government of UP Lucknow The DGP Govt of UP Lucknow UP The District Collector Hathras Superintendent of Police Hathras Area Officer Hathras Shri BS Tyagi Police Incharge Hathras Police Station Hathras


This complaint dated 1182014 was filed by Shri Mahant Jawala Prasad Assistant Editor Hathras Gaurav Hathras UP against Government of Uttar Pradesh alleging harassment meted out to him by the District Administration due to

publication of critical news in his newspaper The date amp caption of the news items read as follows-

SNo Caption Dated

1 अभी भी खलआम घम रहा ह अपराधय का सरगना पलस क मलभगत स चला रहा ह चकलाघर

1032014

2 महत जाला सार न म यम ी स क गरकतार क माग सगीन अपराध का मासरमााइण नरनपाच अभी भी ह पलस क गरकत स साहर- गरोह दारा हाथरस गौर क सहसपारक को मल रह ह जान स मारन झठा फसान क धमक

2432014

3 पलस क नाक क नीच नगर म चार ओर खलआम चरस गाजा परोसा जा रहा ह नई पीढ़ को

3142014

4 जसस रहरआगज ल क अपराधी मल ह छ तसस अलगढ़ मणल म मची ह णकती ल ल काइण क सरगना गर उफर सोन (कालपपनक) ए ानक मासरमााण क मोसाईल क करायी जाए जाच

2142014

5 अपराधक गपतनधयक मदनजर गर गोसामी को ककया था उसक मा न सपितत स सरखल-सगीन अपराध का मासर मााण जक को तरत पलस ल अपनी गरकत म अअयथा य खखार ाररात को रग अजाम

1452014

The complainant stated that the respondent pressurised him not to publish such news in his newspaper and alleged that Shri BS Tyagi Police In-charge Hathras in connivance with the criminals of the area looted and harassed him The complainant further stated that on 23614 he was threatened with death on his mobile and such threat was also given on the mobile of his wife The complainant stated that in this regard he informed to the Police in-charge but no action was taken He further stated that on 2762014 at 200 pm he was attacked by some criminals and a case under section 358014 was registered by the respondent On 172014 the complainantrsquos son informed about the incident to the Superintendent of Police Hathras and to the DM on 772014 The complainant further stated that on 2372014 he wrote to the Chief Minister Government of Uttar Pradesh National Human Rights Commission New Delhi DGP Lucknow and IG Agra The complainant further submitted that he always published the truth and facts in his newspaper in public interest but the respondent tried to curtail the freedom of press

A Notice for Statement in Reply was issued to the respondents on 14102014

Comments of the Superintendent of Police Hathras

Shri Harish Chandra Deputy Secretary Home Department vide his letter dated 25112014 and the District Magistrate Hathras vide letter dated 30122014 forwarded the comments of the Superintendent of Police Hathras In his report the Superintendent of Police Hathras stated that the matter was investigated through

the Additional Superintendent of Police who in his report denied the allegation of the complainant and stated that there is a Chintaharan temple and there the complainant Jawala Prasad and his brother Girish are Mahant for alternate months On 2662014 the turn of the Shri Girish was ending and turn of Shri Jawala Prasad was beginning on 2762014 There was some misunderstanding between both of them and they quarreled with each other In this regard complainantrsquos son got registered a case No35814 in Police Station Kotwali Hathras us 147 323 504506 IPC against Shri Amar Nath amp four others and a Challan was filed in the court on 872014 The report also stated that to maintain the peace in the area on 2862014 action had been initiated against both the parties us107116 In the report it has also been stated that there are 8 cases registered against the complainant in Kotwali Hathras and he is mentioned as HS No94A It is also stated that Shri BS Tyagi has been promoted as the Deputy Superintendent of Police and transferred to Agra Counter Comments of the Complainant

The complainant in his counter comments dated 152015 denied the report of Superintendent of Police Hathras and stated that Shri Nem Singh District Magistrate Area Officer Hathras and Inspector in-charge Hathras had not conducted fair investigation in the matter He further stated that Shri Nem Singh Yadav had not filed the charge sheet under the correct provisions of law The complainant also stated that he was acquitted from the cases registered in the District Magistrate Court Hathras and no further matter is sub-judice

Report of the Inquiry Committee The matter came up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee on 672015 at New Delhi Shri Mahant Jawala Prasad the complainant appeared in person along with Shri DK Sharma Shri Praveen Kumar Singh Sub-Inspector PS Kotwali Hatras UP appeared for the respondent The Inquiry Committee heard the complainant in person as also the representative of the respondent The complainant contended that he had made some critical publications regarding illegal betting business carried on by some anti-social elements in Hathras and being aggrieved with this those anti-social elements threatened him on 2362014 for which he made a complaint before the police and requested them to provide him security but the police neither took any action against those criminals nor gave any security to him He further alleged that the police supported those criminals On the other hand the representative of the respondent contended that the complainant is a history sheeter and eight cases were registered against him and denied all the allegations levelled by the complainant The Inquiry Committee heard both the parties and carefully perused the material on record The Inquiry Committee held that it has not come across any such facts which could convey that the complainant was harassed by the police due to any critical publication It therefore recommended to the Council to dismiss the complaint


Rejoinder of the Complainant

The complainant in his counter comments dated 22714 addressed to the Additional Director (Registration) IampPRD Government of Rajasthan and copy endorsed to Press Council of India submitted that all the requisite documents have been submitted


Further Comments of Director General IampPRD

The Director General Information amp Public Relations Department Government of Uttrakhand in his further comments dated 2432015 while denying all the allegations levelled by the complainant submitted that the advertisements were not issued to the c

Comments of SP Gonda

Shri Mahant Bhagwati Pratap Das 1 The Chief Secretary

Correspondent Dainik Aaj vs Govt of UP Lucknow

Barabanki UP

2 Shri Prabhat Mittal

Information Director

IampPRD Lucknow UP

3 Smt Abhilasha Kulshresta

Chairman Accreditation Committee and Joint Director IampPRD

Lucknow UP

4 Shri Syed Ahmed Hussain

Dy DirectorMember Accreditation Committee

IampPRD Lucknow UP

5 Dr Ashok Kumar Sharma

Dy DirectorMember

Accreditation Committee

IampPRD Lucknow UP

6 Shri Tejveer Singh

Dy Director IampPRD

Lucknow UP

7 Dr Vishvanath Tripathi

Dy DirectorConvenor


This complaint dated 24102013 was filed by Shri Mahant Bhagwati Pratap Das Correspondent Dainik Aaj Barabanki UP against the Director IampPRD Govt of UP alleging discrimination in granting accreditation to him due to reprisal measure as ma

A Notice for Statement in Reply was issued to the respondents on 2632014 for their written statements

Written Statement

The Director IampPRD Lucknow UP in his written statement dated 2442014 stated that a Meeting of the Committee on Press Accreditation was held on 1062013 and the case of the complainant was listed before it for consideration He further submitte

Mohd Javed Kazmi 1 The Director

OwnerPublisherEditor vs DAVP New Delhi

Purvanchal Leher Mau

Uttar Pradesh 2 The Director

IampPRD Govt of UP

This complaint dated 20122013 was filed by Mohd Javed Kazmi OwnerPublisherEditor Purvanchal Leher Mau UP against the DAVP New Delhi for non-renewal of empanelment of his newspaper by the DAVP despite fulfilment of all the formalities and

A Notice for Statement in Reply was issued to the respondents on 2212014 for their comments in the matter

Written Statement of Additional District Information Officer

Dr Jitendra Pratap Singh Additional District Information Officer in his written statement dated 1432014 stated that the application of the complainant regarding accreditation is pending with the Directorate He further stated that the newspaper i

Written Statement of Dy Director IampPRD

Shri Ashok Kumar Banerjee Dy Director IampPRD UP Luknow in his written statement dated 1042014 informed that the complainantrsquos newspaper had not been empanelled for advertisements and renewal could only be possible for those newspapers who ar

Counter Comments

The complainant in his counter comments dated 662014 while narrating the whole facts stated that he published some news items against the present Additional Dy Director Shri Murlidhar Singh due to which the he carries grudge against him He submi

DAVP Reply

The Media Executive DAVP vide his letter dated 2272014 has submitted that the newspaper Purvanchal Leher Hindi weekly was not on approved panel of DAVP as the publisher of Hindi weekly had not applied online for empanelment as per record He furt

Reply of Additional District Information Officer

Dr Jitendra Pratap Singh vide his letter dated 2272014 submitted that the Committee meeting on Press Accreditation conducted at Directorate level on 1462013 and the application of the complainant was presented before it The Committee considered

Complainant Counter Comments

The complainant in his comments dated 2692014 submitted that the reply given by the DAVP was completely false and misleading He submitted that he fulfilled all the requirements of application He sent his printed application along with 18 months n

Complainant further letter

The complainant vide his letter dated 25112014 addressed to the Director DAVP has informed that there was no online registration facility available in the DAVP in the year 2010 and he filed a PDF application printed through registered post and did

Shri Awadh Kishore Jaiswal 1 The SHO

District Correspondent vs Kotwali Sadar

Daily News Activist L akhimpur Khiri

Lakhimpur Khiri UP UP

2 The Chief Secretary

Govt of UP

3 The Secretary

Home (Police) Deptt

Govt of UP

4 The Director General of

Police Lucknow

Govt of UP

5 The Inspector General of

Police Lucknow Zone

UP

6 The District Magistrate

Lakhimpur Khiri

UP

7 The Superintendent of

Police Lakhimpur Khiri

This complaint dated 2232014 was filed by Shri Awadh Kishore Jaiswal District Correspondent Daily News Activist UP against the SHO Kotwali Sadar Lakhimpur Khiri UP for allegedly misbehaving and threatening to implicate him in false case d

The complainant vide his letter dated 392014 submitted the statements of his two fellow journalists Shri Kamal Mishra and Shri Ashok Shukla who were present with the complainant in the police station They both in their statement stated that the S

A Notice for Comments in the first instance was issued to the respondent and Govt of Uttar Pradesh on 482014 for their comments

Comments of Superintendent of Police Khiri

Shri Arvind Sen Superintendent of Police Khiri vide his letter dated 2492014 filed his comments along with an Investigation Report filed by Shri SC Shrivastava Circle Officer Sadar Khiri In his comments he stated that the Area Abkari Inspe

Counter Comments

The complainant vide his letter dated 2892014 submitted that the investigation report prepared by the CO (City) is completely self-made and based on false facts as neither the Circle Officer informed him about the investigation nor recorded his or

any fellow journalists statement He further alleged that there are many criminal cases were registered against the respondent SHO in the matter of murder and loot

The Complainant in his further comments dated 21102014 also stated that the report submitted by the Circle Officer was completely baseless misleading and one-sided in order to save the SHO

Further letter of Superintendent of Police Khiri

In response to the Councilrsquos letter dated 14112014 Shri Arvinde Sen Superintendent of Police Khiri in his further letter dated 422015 while reiterating the same facts of the case furnished an Investigation Report of Additional Superintendent

Editor NaiAawaj Vs DAVP

Haridwar Uttrakhand New Delhi

Counter Comments of the Complainant



Sl No 1 File No1315311-12-PCI Shri SP Sabherwal 1 The Chief Secretary Chief Editor Vs Government of Uttrakhand Northern Post Dehradun Dehradun 2 The Secretary Home(Police) Department Government of Uttrakhand Dehradun 3 Shri Dilip Jawalkar District Magistrate Dehradun Uttrakhand 4 Shri Vinod Suman Additional District Magistrate Dehradun Uttrakhand 5 Shri Meharban Singh Bisht City Magistrate Dehradun Uttrakhand


This complaint dated 822012 was filed by Shri SP Sabherwal Chief Editor Northern Post Uttrakhand against (i) State Government of Uttrakhand Dehradun (ii) Shri Dilip Jawalkar District Magistrate Dehradun (iii) Shri Vinod Suman Additional District Magistrate (E) Dehradun and (iv) Shri Mehraban Singh City Magistrate Dehradun The complainant submitted that the State Government of Uttrakhand through its various officers departments and institutionsauthorities had been harassing and persecuting the press in general and the complainant and his family members in particular for the past several years since June 2011 by various overt and














Adjudication






















Facts



Written Statement
















vs












vs

















vs




-2-








vs
















vs












vs





















































vs





SNo Caption Dated


1032014


2432014


3142014


2142014


1452014

















Barabanki UP



IampPRD Lucknow UP



Lucknow UP



IampPRD Lucknow UP


Dy DirectorMember


IampPRD Lucknow UP


Dy Director IampPRD

Lucknow UP


Dy DirectorConvenor




Written Statement






IampPRD Govt of UP







Counter Comments


DAVP Reply













Govt of UP

3 The Secretary

Home (Police) Deptt

Govt of UP


Police Lucknow

Govt of UP


Police Lucknow Zone

UP


Lakhimpur Khiri

UP








Counter Comments






















Adjudication






















Facts



Written Statement
















vs












vs

















vs




-2-








vs
















vs












vs





















































vs





SNo Caption Dated


1032014


2432014


3142014


2142014


1452014

















Barabanki UP



IampPRD Lucknow UP



Lucknow UP



IampPRD Lucknow UP


Dy DirectorMember


IampPRD Lucknow UP


Dy Director IampPRD

Lucknow UP


Dy DirectorConvenor




Written Statement






IampPRD Govt of UP







Counter Comments


DAVP Reply













Govt of UP

3 The Secretary

Home (Police) Deptt

Govt of UP


Police Lucknow

Govt of UP


Police Lucknow Zone

UP


Lakhimpur Khiri

UP








Counter Comments





























Facts



Written Statement
















vs












vs

















vs




-2-








vs
















vs












vs





















































vs





SNo Caption Dated


1032014


2432014


3142014


2142014


1452014

















Barabanki UP



IampPRD Lucknow UP



Lucknow UP



IampPRD Lucknow UP


Dy DirectorMember


IampPRD Lucknow UP


Dy Director IampPRD

Lucknow UP


Dy DirectorConvenor




Written Statement






IampPRD Govt of UP







Counter Comments


DAVP Reply













Govt of UP

3 The Secretary

Home (Police) Deptt

Govt of UP


Police Lucknow

Govt of UP


Police Lucknow Zone

UP


Lakhimpur Khiri

UP








Counter Comments























vs












vs

















vs




-2-








vs
















vs












vs





















































vs





SNo Caption Dated


1032014


2432014


3142014


2142014


1452014

















Barabanki UP



IampPRD Lucknow UP



Lucknow UP



IampPRD Lucknow UP


Dy DirectorMember


IampPRD Lucknow UP


Dy Director IampPRD

Lucknow UP


Dy DirectorConvenor




Written Statement






IampPRD Govt of UP







Counter Comments


DAVP Reply













Govt of UP

3 The Secretary

Home (Police) Deptt

Govt of UP


Police Lucknow

Govt of UP


Police Lucknow Zone

UP


Lakhimpur Khiri

UP








Counter Comments














vs

















vs




-2-








vs
















vs












vs





















































vs





SNo Caption Dated


1032014


2432014


3142014


2142014


1452014

















Barabanki UP



IampPRD Lucknow UP



Lucknow UP



IampPRD Lucknow UP


Dy DirectorMember


IampPRD Lucknow UP


Dy Director IampPRD

Lucknow UP


Dy DirectorConvenor




Written Statement






IampPRD Govt of UP







Counter Comments


DAVP Reply













Govt of UP

3 The Secretary

Home (Police) Deptt

Govt of UP


Police Lucknow

Govt of UP


Police Lucknow Zone

UP


Lakhimpur Khiri

UP








Counter Comments


















vs




-2-








vs
















vs












vs





















































vs





SNo Caption Dated


1032014


2432014


3142014


2142014


1452014

















Barabanki UP



IampPRD Lucknow UP



Lucknow UP



IampPRD Lucknow UP


Dy DirectorMember


IampPRD Lucknow UP


Dy Director IampPRD

Lucknow UP


Dy DirectorConvenor




Written Statement






IampPRD Govt of UP







Counter Comments


DAVP Reply













Govt of UP

3 The Secretary

Home (Police) Deptt

Govt of UP


Police Lucknow

Govt of UP


Police Lucknow Zone

UP


Lakhimpur Khiri

UP








Counter Comments









-2-








vs
















vs












vs





















































vs





SNo Caption Dated


1032014


2432014


3142014


2142014


1452014

















Barabanki UP



IampPRD Lucknow UP



Lucknow UP



IampPRD Lucknow UP


Dy DirectorMember


IampPRD Lucknow UP


Dy Director IampPRD

Lucknow UP


Dy DirectorConvenor




Written Statement






IampPRD Govt of UP







Counter Comments


DAVP Reply













Govt of UP

3 The Secretary

Home (Police) Deptt

Govt of UP


Police Lucknow

Govt of UP


Police Lucknow Zone

UP


Lakhimpur Khiri

UP








Counter Comments












vs
















vs












vs





















































vs





SNo Caption Dated


1032014


2432014


3142014


2142014


1452014

















Barabanki UP



IampPRD Lucknow UP



Lucknow UP



IampPRD Lucknow UP


Dy DirectorMember


IampPRD Lucknow UP


Dy Director IampPRD

Lucknow UP


Dy DirectorConvenor




Written Statement






IampPRD Govt of UP







Counter Comments


DAVP Reply













Govt of UP

3 The Secretary

Home (Police) Deptt

Govt of UP


Police Lucknow

Govt of UP


Police Lucknow Zone

UP


Lakhimpur Khiri

UP








Counter Comments


















vs












vs





















































vs





SNo Caption Dated


1032014


2432014


3142014


2142014


1452014

















Barabanki UP



IampPRD Lucknow UP



Lucknow UP



IampPRD Lucknow UP


Dy DirectorMember


IampPRD Lucknow UP


Dy Director IampPRD

Lucknow UP


Dy DirectorConvenor




Written Statement






IampPRD Govt of UP







Counter Comments


DAVP Reply













Govt of UP

3 The Secretary

Home (Police) Deptt

Govt of UP


Police Lucknow

Govt of UP


Police Lucknow Zone

UP


Lakhimpur Khiri

UP








Counter Comments
















vs





















































vs





SNo Caption Dated


1032014


2432014


3142014


2142014


1452014

















Barabanki UP



IampPRD Lucknow UP



Lucknow UP



IampPRD Lucknow UP


Dy DirectorMember


IampPRD Lucknow UP


Dy Director IampPRD

Lucknow UP


Dy DirectorConvenor




Written Statement






IampPRD Govt of UP







Counter Comments


DAVP Reply













Govt of UP

3 The Secretary

Home (Police) Deptt

Govt of UP


Police Lucknow

Govt of UP


Police Lucknow Zone

UP


Lakhimpur Khiri

UP








Counter Comments


























































vs





SNo Caption Dated


1032014


2432014


3142014


2142014


1452014

















Barabanki UP



IampPRD Lucknow UP



Lucknow UP



IampPRD Lucknow UP


Dy DirectorMember


IampPRD Lucknow UP


Dy Director IampPRD

Lucknow UP


Dy DirectorConvenor




Written Statement






IampPRD Govt of UP







Counter Comments


DAVP Reply













Govt of UP

3 The Secretary

Home (Police) Deptt

Govt of UP


Police Lucknow

Govt of UP


Police Lucknow Zone

UP


Lakhimpur Khiri

UP








Counter Comments










SNo Caption Dated


1032014


2432014


3142014


2142014


1452014

















Barabanki UP



IampPRD Lucknow UP



Lucknow UP



IampPRD Lucknow UP


Dy DirectorMember


IampPRD Lucknow UP


Dy Director IampPRD

Lucknow UP


Dy DirectorConvenor




Written Statement






IampPRD Govt of UP







Counter Comments


DAVP Reply













Govt of UP

3 The Secretary

Home (Police) Deptt

Govt of UP


Police Lucknow

Govt of UP


Police Lucknow Zone

UP


Lakhimpur Khiri

UP








Counter Comments





















Barabanki UP



IampPRD Lucknow UP



Lucknow UP



IampPRD Lucknow UP


Dy DirectorMember


IampPRD Lucknow UP


Dy Director IampPRD

Lucknow UP


Dy DirectorConvenor




Written Statement






IampPRD Govt of UP







Counter Comments


DAVP Reply













Govt of UP

3 The Secretary

Home (Police) Deptt

Govt of UP


Police Lucknow

Govt of UP


Police Lucknow Zone

UP


Lakhimpur Khiri

UP








Counter Comments









Agenda Item No. 3 Complaints By the Press Section-13 (13...

Documents

Transcript of Agenda Item No. 3 Complaints By the Press Section-13 (13...